tv The Ed Show MSNBC February 20, 2013 3:00am-4:00am EST
some way tundermine the president. whatever it takes to destroy it. we are using in this country the same old cold war cia tactics to destabilize our own country. look at the impact this constant threats to shut down the government have been having on public confidence. it's all in the ratings. it's undermining it, making people forever nervous about the basic ability of america to even have a running government. that patriotic? i don't think so. that's "hardball" for now. thanks for being with us. "the ed show" with ed schultz starts right now. good evening, americans, and welcome to "the ed show" from new york. so-called experts call simpson/bowles a serious plan. tonight i'll expose how it's seriously going to kill the economy. liberals, hold your ground. this is "the ed show." let's get to work. >> are you willing to see a bunch of first responders lose their job because you want to protect some special interest tax loophole? >> the president takes his case to the people as the two salesmen for republican austerity are mobbed by protesters. >> pay your share of taxes. >> pay your tax. >> tonight, "time's" michael grunwald, jonathan alter and
katrina vanden heuvel on how to dismantle the austerity bomb. >> 10,000 bucks? the godfather of the conservative movement offers romney pocket change to anyone who can save the republican party. i'll show you why it's a lost cause. plus, a virginia pizza shop owner uses a sick promotion to sell pies and push the nra agenda. the beltway press takes their eye off the ball, complaining about obama and tiger woods. the least popular senator is desperately attacking ashley judd. and david corn, the co-author of "hubris" and co-author of the msnbc documentary tells me what was left out. >> i'm sure the administration cooked the books. >> good to have you with us, folks. thanks for watching. keep in mind when you hear the word "sequester," the sequester cuts were designed to be so bad, so terrible, that lawmakers would be forced to come up with an alternative plan.
well, that didn't work. these cuts are on the verge of happening anyway. march 1 is the big date, a week from this friday. president obama responded with a real sense of urgency today. he made the strongest case yet about the damage these sequester cuts will do to the country's economy. >> these cuts are not smart. they are not fair. they will hurt our economy. they will add hundreds of thousands of americans to the unemployment roles. this is not an abstraction. people will lose their jobs. >> people standing with the president today are among those who will directly impacted by congress if they refuse to act. >> emergency responders, like the ones who are here today, their ability to help communities respond to and recover from disasters will be degraded. border patrol agents will see their hours reduced. fbi agents will be furloughed. federal prosecutors will have to close cases and let criminals go.
air traffic controllers and airport security will see cutbacks, which means more delays at airports across the country. >> and it doesn't stop there. we're talking thousands of teachers who are going to be laid off across america. there will be cuts to primary health care for hundreds of thousands of americans. preventative care, like cancer screenings are also going to be hit and taken off the list. i mean cuts to the military are also going to be job killers because of projects. and the president isn't giving up hope. but it's time for congress, don't you think, to get to work? >> we got a few days. congress can do the right thing. we can avert just one more washington manufactured problem that slows our recovery. >> kind of feels like president obama has said all of this stuff before. well, that's because he has. four times in the past three months, to be exact. the republican strategy of obstruct and delay has really
become so predictable. >> this is something within our capacity to solve. it didn't take that much work. outside of washington, nobody understands how it is that this seems to be a repeat pattern over and over again. >> they expect our leaders to succeed on their behalf. so do i. everybody here understands this. this is not a complicated concept. >> this is the new normal. republicans in congress continue to make artificial deadlines and refuse to meet them. they also lie about them. house speaker john boehner continues to claim the republican house is doing its job. >> for the last two years, the house has done its work. we've passed legislation to tackle the tough challenges. >> okay. let's take a look at these important challenges that john boehner's house has passed. they passed the ryan budget, which is far out of touch with mainstream americans. we made that decision back in
november. the country does not want voucherized medicare. boehner's house passed 30 repeals of obama care. more out of touch nonsense that the country rejected. recently they passed a bill pretending to withhold pay raises from congress, but of course that's something they constitutionally can't do. and president obama says it's time to get serious. and it is. but republicans show no signs of seriously addressing the pain ahead for the middle class in this country. and it is about the middle class. and then there is simpson/bowles, which i think is a total fraud, and we shouldn't be listening to people who have, number one, retirement security and health care security for the rest of their lives. they're the wrong people to listen to. they're doing a lot of grandstanding. but they shouldn't get much attention. more commentary coming on simpson/bowles in just a moment. get your cell phones out. i want to know what you think. tonight's question. will the republicans allow the sequester to destroy the middle class? text "a" for yes. text b for no to 67622. you can always go to our blog at ed.msnbc.com.
we'll bring you the results later on in the show. joining me tonight, michael grunwald. he is a senior correspondent for "time" magazine, and author of "the new new deal: the hidden story of change in the obama era." great to have you with us tonight, michael. >> thank you. >> here we are, a week from friday and the big cuts are going to take place. four legislative days. of course you have to throw in the vacation that they're taking right now. can they get it done in that window? >> no, they probably can't. i imagine the sequester will go into effect. and then as people start freaking out and government services that they like start getting cut, then there will be some pressure to try to replace the sequester. >> so this was republican senator john barrasso who is on the leadership team talking about the guest their weekend. here it is. >> let me be very clear, and i'd say this to the president as i say it to you.
these spending cuts are going to go through on march 1. their taxes are off the table. >> okay, michael. how do you walk that back if you're a republican? >> well, probably you don't. and they've -- you know, remember, republicans used to be all about stimulus. they didn't like austerity. in 2008, every presidential candidate had a stimulus plan. and mitt romney had the largest one. it was only something happened on i think it was january 20th, 2009 where suddenly republicans decided they didn't like stimulus anymore, and that the way to restore the economy was by cutting things. and then, of course, when defense was going to be cut in the sequester, that again is terrible for the economy. it's only cutting things that poor people like that is good for the economy. so, again, they've strapped themselves to this kind of economic dynamite that has caused double dip recessions in great britain and spain. but it's not like they're going to back off it in the next four days. >> well, liberals in this country are concerned that maybe
the president has strapped himself to doing things to the big three that people don't want. is there a chance that the president would give in to republican demands and go the austerity route? >> well, i think there is -- look, in his first -- in his first term, you know, he inherited this economy that was in absolute free-fall. we were losing 800,000 jobs a month, and he passed this $800 billion stimulus that the next quarter you had the biggest improvement in jobs in 30 years. and he continued to quietly push stimulus throughout the next couple of years while he had a democratic congress. and that's why we avoided the fates that you had in great britain and spain. since then -- >> well, isn't -- >> a stalemate. >> isn't that what simpson/bowles is throwing at us right now? what has pretty much taken place in europe. >> absolutely. >> could we stay out of a recession if we were to adapt
simpson/bowles? >> well, we might stay out of a recession because the economy is a lot stronger than it was in january 2009. but there is no question that at this point there is still slack in the economy, and this sort of austerity would hurt. remember, the argument for austerity was that if you do stimulus, if you run big deficits, you're going to have runaway inflation, and you're going to have exploding interest rates. that's been proven wrong. where you have low inflation and historically low interest rates. right now our problem is jobs, and there is no question cutting that sort of spending is going to hurt jobs. >> michael grunwald, good to have you with us tonight. thanks for being on "the ed show." erskine bowles and allen simpson introduced a new simpson/bowles deficit reduction plan today, even though nobody asked them to do it. the new simpson/bowles is worse than the old one. there is only $600 billion in tax savings less than what they proposed before. now there are cuts to medicare, medicaid and social security benefits. the ratio of cuts to new tax revenue is three-to-one. who voted for that? today bowles and simpson were interrupted by protesters as they tried to pitch their new
plan. this is a proper response to the latest simpson/bowles proposal. >> pay your fair taxes. pay your fair tax. >> some cuts don't yield. we need good jobs now. pay your tax. >> let's bring in jonathan alter, msnbc political analyst and columnist for "bloomberg view" and katrina vanden heuvel, publisher of the nation magazine. great to have both of you with us tonight. jonathan, what do you make of this? we're talking about austerity when it's been proven if we go that route, it's going to hurt the economy. >> absolutely. in the short-run, you have to be nuts to want to cut spending right now. the real question for rational people is can we do something? and this is what the president favors, that tries to bring the deficit under control in the long-term. make some structural changes so
that down the road, we can bring that deficit down. because a deficit of this size that we have now, approaching a trillion is not healthy for an economy in the long-term, even if, as michael grunwald says it doesn't cause higher interest rates and innovation in the short-run. in the long run it causes problems. liberals need to be careful not to get themselves in a position where in rightfully fighting these ridiculous cuts right now, they say, well, there is no problem at all with the deficit, because there is. >> to me it's about the priorities of our country. america is not broke. it's our priorities that are broke. and it's a measure of how out of whack the debate in this country is that the simpson/bowles 2.0 lopsidedly favoring spending cuts is treated as this mythical arbitrary center in washington inside the beltway. do elections matter? do what people have signaled as their priorities?
we should be investing in job creation as the best means of deficit reduction. we shouldn't be cutting and bleeding our economy. and if there was any measure of rationality in our system, we'd be having a serious debate in congress about the best liberal plan put forward, the one by the progressive caucus. raising $947 billion in revenue, cutting the defense budget in order to not hurt the most vulnerable and the most poor, and also treating these earned benefits in honest ways and investing in infrastructure and jobs. >> i'm in total agreement with that. we have a cold war defense budget. >> higher than the cold. >> but there are also some prudent cuts that can be made. >> like what? >> on the domestic side. well, are you telling me, ed, that some of these programs -- i'm not talking about the ones that hurt the poor. i don't want those touched. but some of these other government programs couldn't sustain a 5% cut, that some of
these agencies? >> but why begin with cuts? there are -- >> you don't begin with cuts. what the president wants which is a balanced approach. you have tax increase -- >> $1.2 trillion in cuts, and boehner is running around saying well, we got revenue just a few months ago. no, we didn't. >> that's right. >> we just had legislation expire. we're not going down a tax path that we've never been before. >> the obama white house does have a list of prudent cuts that could be made. >> elizabeth warren has prudent cuts. but the kind of cuts, we should be cutting subsidies to big oil. >> totally agree. >> big pharma. we should be increasing "robin hood" financial speculation taxes on the corporations. we should be closing loopholes and deducts for the very rich. the frame of our debate in this country is not a reality-based discussion. as michael grunwald said, you look across the ocean, the bleeding, the generational loss as spain suffers 26% unemployment. and in our country is similar. >> this is exactly what boehner is going for right now. they don't want -- they've said taxes are off the table or
increased revenues are off the table, no matter where you go to get them that is a heck of a place to be considering that you got kicked in the election. >> if we do have these cuts go into effect after the first of the month, there is going to be a really rude awakening for the republicans. >> yeah, i think so too. >> that will move from an abstraction to this is what these crazy -- >> pay the price politically? >> they better, to make sure that the american public understands. this is the republicans' fault when these cuts come through. >> the president needs to use his bully pulpit to take on these bullies, and to really speak to what the priorities of these republicans are. >> yeah. >> because you see it so clearly. and no investment in health care or education. let's protect the top 0.1%. >> if it wasn't going to hurt people, i would almost look forward to this happening. >> no it's cruel. >> it's cruel. >> it is cruel. and they were all rejected in the election.
>> in the election. >> all of the plans that boehner is talking about was totally rejected by the american people. >> yep. >> they had their chance for him to say the senate needs to go do their work is a cop-out. >> it's cruel. 2014 is coming up. it is cruel. it's damaging the very ones who have already been hurt so much. and it's a hoax because it won't work. >> president obama needs to hear from the public again. this is when people need to connect with their representatives and senators to make sure that the simpson/bowles doesn't even get into the equation. because that's not what we voted for in this country. we're a center-left progressive country right now. and the time to move forward is right now and not allow the republican obstructionists to get in the way. jonathan alter, katrina vanden heuvel, great to have you with us tonight. thank you so much. remember to answer the question. share your thoughts on twitter and ed show on facebook. we want to know what you think. so here it comes. the godfather of the conservative movement is offering a whopping yesteryear $10,000 offer to save the republican party. you can't make this stuff up. that's next and a lot more.
coming up, the big panel and i break down the biggest beltway noncontroversy of the obama administration. it's tigergate, and it's coming up. liberals who question the bush administration's cooked up intelligence before the iraq war are being vindicated by folks who are now going on camera. we'll have more on that tonight. and don't forget you can listen to my radio show on sirius xm radio 127 noon to 3:00 p.m. share your thoughts with us on facebook and on twitter using #edshow. we are coming right back.
welcome back to "the ed show." conservative strategist richard viguerie is offering a whopping $10,000 to anyone who can come up with a plan to help conservatives take over the republican party and win the november 2016 elections and govern america by 2017. for those interested in submitting ideas, the entire $10,000 could go to one person who writes a great plan, or it could be divided among persons who submit specific ideas to advance the project. this is a big deal. if mr. viguerie is looking for a conservative takeover, he should put his checkbook away. number one, it's not a lot of money. number two, they're well on the way. not only has the extreme right wing hijacked the gop, they are wreaking havoc on our political system by bringing crackpot conspiracy theorys to the halls of congress. let me give you a list. senators lindsey graham and kelly ayotte have written a letter to defense secretary nominee chuck hagel asking him to clarify something he may or
may not have said back in 2007. well, graham explains the letter's content on fox news sunday. >> there was a blog posting about a speech i think in 2007 or '08 that chuck hagel made at rutgers university and put on his blog the next day six points of the speech. question-and-answer session, and point six was allegedly senator hagel said the u.s. state department was an adjunct of the israeli foreign minister's office, which i think would be breathtaking if he said that. >> okay. so let's see if we're all on the same page here and have this correct. a right-wing website publishes a resumer from a blog based on something hagel may or may not have said in a speech over, count them, five years ago. and now sitting united states senators are demanding hagel explain himself. hagel provided ayotte and graham with a copy of the speech and notes he does not recall making any such statement.
now, folks, this is a pattern for the new gop that maybe mr. viguerie is looking for. senator rand paul pushing a theory about moving guns from libya to syria. paul's theory can be traced back to glenn beck. michele bachmann accused hillary clinton's chief of staff of having ties to the muslim brotherhood. her source? an uncorroborated report from a right wing talker frank gaffney. congressman darrell issa got in the act. he orchestrated an entire circus over the fast and furious gun running operation, all based on the rambling of one paranoid blogger. congressman dana rohrabacher alleged the government was able to monitor the benghazi attack in realtime based on a made-up hunch from right-wing blogger jennifer rubin. so time and time again, we are seeing elected officials peddle rumors and hearsay to further their agenda. they're blocking nominations. they're ruining people's reputations, they're holding hearings, and they are smearing
people any possible way they can. no $10,000 price can repair the damage the republican party has inflicted upon itself. let's bring in john nichols, washington correspondent of "the nation" magazine. john, good to have you with us tonight. there are no boundaries when it comes to making stuff up with the republicans. where is the republican party right now? they are baseless in their facts and their attacks. they claim that there are massive cover-ups of benghazi. the list goes on and on. does anybody believe this is good for our political process? >> well, it can't possibly be good for the political process, ed. you know, the interesting thing is that the great contribution of the republican party to american politics for many, many years was moderate republicans, responsible players who might well tell a liberal democrat to back off a little bit, but they would also tell a conservative to back off a little. that has just disappeared from the republican party. and now we have a situation, ed,
where someone like a lindsey graham, who ten years ago might well have worked with some democrats, is so afraid of a tea party republican primary in south carolina that he continues to spout nonsense. i mean, even when chuck hagel sent him a letter saying, look, here is the details, here is my speech. lindsey graham didn't have the dignity or the grace to say okay, my former republican colleague has clarified this. instead he said if what he is saying is true, we'll have to accept it there is a bitterness and a cruelty. >> you've been a journalist for a long time. are we at a point now in our news culture that if something is posted on a blog, whether it's right or wrong, there is now a pretty good chance that a united states senator might just be quoting that on a sunday show? i mean, my god, do they have any sense whatsoever when it comes to information and how serious a
position that they're in to damage people? i mean lindsey graham went on a sunday show, and he quoted a blog, and he held it against chuck hagel and his reputation. what about that? >> look at what ted cruz did on the committee. ted cruz was saying, well, he might have thought this, or he might have done this. they are -- they are going in to areas of idle speculation about bizarre things. and this roots back to something, ed. we really have the better part of 30 years within the republican party of saying that you can't believe any mainstream media. and as a result, there is a tendency to reject "the new york times," "washington post," cbs, nbc, any mainstream media, they say that's just bias. so they push themselves further and further to the right for their sources of information. even rush limbaugh is suspect to some of these folks because he is too moderate.
>> john nichols, washington correspondent of the nation. great to have you with us tonight. thank you so much. granny get your gun. next i'll explain exactly how radical gun laws across america have deadly consequences. some members of the beltway media are flat-out bent out of shape because they didn't get to see president obama and tiger play golf. they want full access. tonight the big panel exposes their hypocrisy. [ female announcer ] going to sleep may be easy, but when you wake up in the middle of the night it can be frustrating. it's hard to turn off and go back to sleep. intermezzo is the first and only prescription sleep aid approved for use as needed in the middle of the night
when you can't get back to sleep. it's an effective sleep medicine you don't take before bedtime. take it in bed only when you need it and have at least four hours left for sleep. do not take intermezzo if you have had an allergic reaction to drugs containing zolpidem, such as ambien. allergic reactions such as shortness of breath or swelling of your tongue or throat may occur and may be fatal. intermezzo should not be taken if you have taken another sleep medicine at bedtime or in the middle of the night or drank alcohol that day. do not drive or operate machinery until at least 4 hours after taking intermezzo and you're fully awake. driving, eating, or engaging in other activities while not fully awake without remembering the event the next day have been reported. abnormal behaviors may include aggressiveness, agitation, hallucinations, or confusion. alcohol or taking other medicines that make you sleepy may increase these risks. in depressed patients, worsening of depression, including risk of suicide, may occur. intermezzo, like most sleep medicines,
>> welcome back to "the ed show." in the months since the shooting rampage in newtown, connecticut, which left 26 people dead, nra ceo wayne lapierre has pushed the narrative more guns means a safer america. gun rights activists have embraced this claim, with some going even further than that and capitalizing on the national discussion. a youth hockey league in fargo, north dakota, with players as young as 4 years old plans to give away 200 firearms in a raffle. it's a great fundraiser for them. the new hampshire association of chiefs of police is raffling off 31 firearms, including semiautomatic weapons. and the latest all around pizzas and deli in virginia beach, virginia, is offering 15% discount if you carry openly to the store or show them a concealed weapons permit. here is a happy customer posing with her son's semiautomatic rifle. it's fun for the whole family, isn't it, young and old. see, in virginia it's legal to carry a gun into banks,
hospitals, stores, movie theaters, restaurants, and open carry is even allowed in bars. sounds like a great idea. let's see, guns and alcohol, mix them together, nothing is going to happen. here is what more guns have led to in the virginia beach area. i wonder if this shooter stopped in all around pizzas for a discount slice. or these two charged with two counts of murder, or the person who shot this man walking into the mall. or the man who was charged with shooting someone in the neck just 15 minutes away. according to data collected by slate, the website, and also the twitter feed gun deaths, there have been at least 1,981 gun deaths in america since the newtown tragedy. more guns does not equal less violence. but i sure hope they all enjoy the 15% discount on their pizza. the press complains about
the president and tiger woods. but they're nowhere to be found on real issues. the big panel on the beltway wambulance is next. plus, the country's least popular senator is with his ashley judd attack ad. >> tennessee is home. >> i might just want to stop here. and last night rachel maddow ripped the scab off the wound with her document "hubris." >> it at worst deception. it is at worst incompetence. >> tonight david corn of mother jones on what the movie couldn't show. it's a new day. if your a man with low testosterone, you should know that axiron is here. the only underarm treatment for low t. that's right, the one you apply to the underarm. axiron is not for use in women or anyone younger than 18.
axiron can transfer to others through direct contact. women, especially those who are or who may become pregnant, and children should avoid contact where axiron is applied as unexpected signs of puberty in children or changes in body hair or increased acne in women may occur. report these signs and symptoms to your doctor if they occur. tell your doctor about all medical conditions and medications. do not use if you have prostate or breast cancer. serious side effects could include increased risk of prostate cancer; worsening prostate symptoms; decreased sperm count; ankle, feet, or body swelling; enlarged or painful breasts; problems breathing while sleeping; and blood clots in the legs. common side effects include skin redness or irritation where applied, increased red blood cell count, headache, diarrhea, vomiting, and increase in psa. see your doctor, and for a 30-day free trial, go to axiron.com.
of the united states when he played golf with tiger woods. here is fox news ed henry, the president of the white house correspondence association. >> this is not about a trivial issue like a golf game. we don't really care about the president's score. what we care about is access to the president of the united states, whether it's a democrat or a republican. this is about the very serious issue of transparency. >> okay. let's have that discussion and run the numbers. here are some statistics on presidential access. president obama has held 79 news conferences in his first term compared to 89 for george w. bush. but according to white house press secretary jay carney, president obama has held 35 news conferences in which reporters were permitted to take questions. okay. president bush held 19 by this
point in his presidency. so what are we talking about here, ed? the media frenzy over the golf game reached tiger woods himself during a news conference about an upcoming tournament today. >> playing with mr. president was pretty cool. he is a wonderful person to be around and we won. yeah, he calls up and said hey tiger, you want to play? >> he does not. >> obviously, there is a process that is involved. and i was invited to play. he hit the ball well and got amazing touch. he can certainly chip and putt. >> just how regular of a guy is barack obama? he is president of the united states. he wants to play with the best golfer in the world, arguably. the white house has said the golf game was played on a private course, and therefore the press pool was not invited. let's sort it out tonight. if we're talking about transparency and access, i'm joined by joan walsh of salon.com, ryan grim of "the huffington post," and susan del percio. great to have all of you with us tonight.
joan, if it is about transparency and it is about access, hasn't barack obama been more than forthcoming? and why does this come it now when president obama is arguably on his recreational time? your thoughts. >> well, you know, the last time the president used the word transparency, ed, was last week in the state of the union talking about his national security policies, which have not been as transparent as many of us want. so when i read ed henry's letter, i thought he must be talking about that. he must be talking about the drone program. he must be talking about that white paper on targeted killings, right? that's what we need transparency on. and, of course, he was not. the letter really reached a certain kind of self-satire that made me think that it's time for those guys to have stephen colbert back as their keynote speaker at their din their year, because this is ridiculous that the most important thing,
disappointing thing that the president has done is golfed with tiger woods privately, and this is what they're raising a ruckus about. it's ridiculous. >> susan, a golf game. isn't the timing terrible for ed henry if he represents the press corps? >> i really think this is unfounded. i really think there is no reason for going after the president whether he is playing golf with tiger woods or anybody else. i'm fine with his vacation time for the press not to have access. as a matter of fact, it's probably more relaxing for the president, which is a good thing. but there is some pushback here. and i think it has to do with something deeper, which is the complaints the press has had with this administration leapfrogging them at times and using social media and other tools to get their message out, which is perfectly acceptable in this world. i think that the press probably hasn't caught up to it yet, the more traditional press. >> ryan, did tiger woods have anything to do with any of this? it would have been a heck of a
story if somebody had gotten access, and they would have had fun with it. it would have been ratings. >> if it was just obama and a staffer and two other folks out golfing, they probably wouldn't have wanted to go out there. they wanted to see tiger woods hit a drive. these reporters are just like any man out there. but what they missed is that the other two members of the foursome, milton carroll and jim crane, as lucia graves has reported for "huffington post" are oilmen. so at the exact same time there is this huge climate protest going on in washington, obama is out playing golf with texas oilmen. and this is just after, you know, he gave his speech on at the state of the union saying that we cannot wait. the world is being destroyed by climate. we have to do something. >> that would have been really bad optics. >> luckily for him the press was so worked up about the fact that they couldn't get a photo of tiger woods that they didn't google the other two guys that he was golfing with.
>> right. they didn't mention it. they didn't google it. it doesn't matter. they're not complaining about golfing with oil men. they're complaining about golfing with a celebrity and that they didn't get their time to ask tying area few questions. >> all right. two days ago senator marco rubio said the president's plan on immigration was dead on arrival. the president today reached out to several senators, including senator rubio. both sides have released statements saying they are committed to a bipartisan commission and they agree there is progress. joan, what is going on here? these statements are very diplomatic given the statements telephone last few days. we have gone from dead on a rival to these guys talking to one another. what does it say about the president reaching out to senator rubio? >> well, it seems like it helped. and it is also clear there had been staff communications all along that the president is not doing this in a vacuum, and that they know that they can't do it without democrats either. so it's actually a rare sign that something might get done on this, and that they decided to dial back the insanity and not slap him and slap him back when he called. i think it's a good thing from what we can tell. i think they're probably still
pretty far apart. >> it would it seems to me that the president, i'm speculating, would call up rubio and say hey, my plan is just like yours. it really me? is newt gingrich right? am i the problem in all of this? ryan, is this new president obama in his second term who is going to, you know, press the republican senators on issues like this where he really wants to see something get done, and we all know that immigration reform is a big deal. >> he certainly has learned a lot from his first term. what he is showing now is that he doesn't want another episode where mack baucus spends eight months sitting around with a couple of republicans pleading to get one of their votes and eventually they all trickle off. and, you know, he was also not involved at all during the health care. certainly he was sending people down, but he wasn't picking up the phone, you know, and calling down there like he did today, though certainly he had some phone conversations with olympia snowe. >> sure. >> that obviously didn't pan
out. but that's what this is. he is saying this is not going to be a 14-month affair. we know where we are. we're going to do this or we're not going to do it. but we're not going to drag it out for 14 months. >> susan, the president says that he'll work with anybody. i mean, he is calling republican senators, trying to get something to move on immigration. doesn't this put rubio in somewhat of a box? one day he says it's dead on arrival, the next day he says we're making progress, had a good conversation with the president. >> this was a great move by the president strategically, there is no doubt about it. and he said he was open to conversation. he didn't say it was his plan and that's it. they said they were going to work together. as you said, they were both very diplomatic. and now it is on the republicans to show that they can work with this administration and they have more incentive because,
frankly, it's very much in their own agenda. the problem that the president potentially can have is within democrats in his own party who are up for reelection in 2014 on this and a couple of other issues. he may also have to call some democratic senators to get this done. >> all right, joan walsh, ryan grim, susan del percio. you never know. the president might have been breaking the news to the oil guys that hey, fellows, we're not going to do the keystone pipeline. it's your putt. >> we'll never know. first karl rove attacked her. now the senate minority leader is desperately going after ashley judd, 20 months, 20 months, before election day. we're rights back.
and of course we love hearing from our fans on social media. and tonight many of you are taking issue with the nra's wayne lapierre, who made up a story recently that south brooklyn was a hellish world, where looters ran wild in the aftermath of super storm sandy. on facebook, ingrid writes the man lives in his own world of violence and an impending apocalypse. linda bauer calls it fearmongering, the nra's constant ploy to sell guns. and kevin says lapierre's level of paranoid delusion underscores
the need for tighter gun control. you can go to our facebook now and join in on the conversation. and don't forget to like "the ed show" when you're there. we appreciate that. "hubris," the book and the documentary by the same name have ripped open new information on the lead-up to the war in iraq. david corn is here for more tonight, and we'll be right back.
welcome back to "the ed show." there are signs senate minority leader mitch mcconnell is worried about losing his job. actress ashley judd is seriously considering running against the gentleman from kentucky. she is reportedly consulted with new york senator gillibrand and hired a democratic pollster to judge her chances in the bluegrass state. karl rove already spent $10,000 attacking ashley judd with this wild and crazy commercial, and now mitch mcconnell is taking on judd in his first commercial of his 2014 reelection campaign. it pokes fun at the president of the united states and other
possible democratic candidates who might take on mcconnell. >> i'm going to start with this young lady right here in sort of the pink-white blouse, right there. and wait until the microphone comes up. introduce yourself. >> from the volunteer state, i proudly stand to nominate. >> whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. >> tennessee, the home of former president al gore. >> the fact mitch mcconnell is spending time and money attacking ashley judd is a sure sign he is in deep trouble. come on, she is a hollywood liberal from tennessee who might run in kentucky? meanwhile, recent poll numbers also don't look too good for mcconnell. only 17% of kentucky voters would vote for the senate minority leader if the election were held today. another poll shows his approval rating at 37%. it makes him the least popular senator in the country. and in a head-to-head matchup against ashley judd, mcconnell
is leading by only nine points. now, these numbers and mcconnell's new commercial prove the republican minority leader is in a pretty rough spot early on, and there is plenty of time for ashley judd to make up those nine points if she by chance decides to run in the 2014 midterm election, which of course is only 623 days away. 623 days away, and mitch, you're worried? tonight in our survey, i asked you will the republicans allow the sequester to destroy the middle class? 96% of you say yes. 4% of you say no. coming up, david corn joins me to discuss even more shocking details about "hubris." that's next. stay with us. wambulance. wambulance. [ female announcer ] going to sleep may be easy, but when you wake up
in the middle of the night it can be frustrating. it's hard to turn off and go back to sleep. intermezzo is the first and only prescription sleep aid approved for use as needed in the middle of the night when you can't get back to sleep. it's an effective sleep medicine you don't take before bedtime. take it in bed only when you need it and have at least four hours left for sleep. do not take intermezzo if you have had an allergic reaction to drugs containing zolpidem, such as ambien. allergic reactions such as shortness of breath or swelling of your tongue or throat may occur and may be fatal. intermezzo should not be taken if you have taken another sleep medicine at bedtime or in the middle of the night or drank alcohol that day. do not drive or operate machinery until at least 4 hours after taking intermezzo and you're fully awake. driving, eating, or engaging in other activities
while not fully awake without remembering the event the next day have been reported. abnormal behaviors may include aggressiveness, agitation, hallucinations, or confusion. alcohol or taking other medicines that make you sleepy may increase these risks. in depressed patients, worsening of depression, including risk of suicide, may occur. intermezzo, like most sleep medicines, has some risk of dependency. common side effects are headache, nausea, and fatigue. so if you suffer from middle-of-the-night insomnia, ask your doctor about intermezzo and return to sleep again. ♪
overmany discounts to thine customers! [old english accent] safe driver, multi-car, paid in full -- a most fulsome bounty indeed, lord jamie. thou cometh and we thy saveth! what are you doing? we doth offer so many discounts, we have some to spare. oh, you have any of those homeowners discounts? here we go. thank you.
he took my shield, my lady. these are troubling times in the kingdom. more discounts than we knoweth what to do with. now that's progressive. and in the big finish tonight, we're approaching the ten-year anniversary of the war in iraq, and we still have questions about the bush administration's motives. last night i asked retired colonel larry wilkerson, lawrence wilkerson about the run-up to the war in iraq. do you believe the bush administration cooked the books to sell the war in iraq? >> i didn't know it at the time, and i fault myself for that. i'll go to my grave with that mass failing on my part. but, yes, in retrospect, having done all the research and work that my students and others have done, plus myself, i'm damn sure that the bush administration cooked the books. >> wilkerson is not alone. for the first time in ten years,
top level insiders are going on the record about the bush administration's push for war. last night my colleague rachel maddow aired an hour-long documentary based on the book by michael isikoff and david corn called "hubris: selling the iraq war." the documentary compiled years of reporting to give us a fresh look at the flaws in the decision-making process. at one point, the film showed how personal the conflict with iraq had become for president bush. >> he got very animated. he used uncharacteristically profanity, and used the middle fingerer to demonstrate saddam hussein's disdain for the united states and for him personally. >> i've heard only one serious criticism of the documentary. viewers thought it was just too short there is a lot to get in there in the network, and rachel did a fabulous job on this. so we're continuing the conversation tonight with msnbc analyst david corn, d.c. bureau chief for mother jones and co-author of the book "hubris." congratulations are in order. for his excellent reporting on the 47% in the last campaign in 2012.
david, congratulations. >> thanks. thanks a lot, ed. >> there is so much to pack in one hour. but one thing that struck me is that when it was over with, i turned to my wife and said we actually reelected this guy in 2004. what important facts do you think still could have gone in that hit the edit room floor? >> well, we had lots of stories in the book that couldn't make it into an hour-long documentary about dissent and disagreement up and down the chain of command in the intelligence system that really was totally ignored by those at the top. a real good example is people remember last night hearing the story about the aluminum tubes, and they saw houston woods, who was an expert at the department of energy who said saddam
hussein can't use these aluminum tubes for his nuclear weapons program. they're probably rocket launchers. he was one of the top experts in the nation, but there was a guy, a cia analyst who didn't have the same technical expertise who kept insisting this was the clue. this told us that he was trying to turn uranium into the type of uranium you can use in a bomb. so that was a very active debate. the experts knew what they were saying, and yet condoleezza rice, even though this fight was going on and had even been reported slightly in the "washington post," would get out there on tv and say there is certainty here. there is no doubt he has acquired -- saddam has acquired these aluminum tubes to make a nuclear weapon. and that to me still, i mean ten years later, is shocking that the national security adviser would say such a thing and not even know there was a very robust debate over this. >> what was bush's personal motivation, you think? >> you know, that's a real good question.
talking to your producer before the show, one of the questions is what do we not know, still not know? and i still think in a lot of ways we don't know why bush did this. one question i have is when we came into office, had there not been a 9/11, would he have been hell-bent on this? i think there is a lot of evidence that the neocons around him, you know, donald rumsfeld and dick cheney and paul wolfowitz, they were gunning for saddam hussein even before 9/11, and they used 9/11 as an excuse to go after him right away. was bush, you know, in that camp? was it personal because of what happened with his father? his father not finishing off the job? after 9/11, did he just feel the need to be proactive, to do something to show the country he was willing to take a risk with the lives of others, of course. >> what shocked you the most? >> and go along with the neocon plan. >> i got to get this in.
david, what shocked you the most about doing your research on this? >> there was one story in the book that we didn't get on last night because it's kind of convoluted. there was a woman named lori milroy, really a conspiracy theory who said for years had said saddam hussein was the puppet master behind al qaeda. al qaeda was nothing. it was all saddam hussein. and paul wolfowitz, the number two in the defense department totally bought her theories, even though the cia and the fbi kept saying she was full of you know what. and even after 9/11, he kept saying to everyone, read this book. she knows what she is talking about. this should be a basis of our policy. and the fact that it actually became the basis for our policy, and a fellow who is said to be as part as paul wolfowitz who would really become the victim of a conspiracy theorist is still shocking to me today. and i would love another ten minutes in the documentary to work through that. >> is there follow-up work here on your part? >> well, mike and i, mike isikoff, we're always talking about the next project and what else we can get. i thought the documentary got some new stuff in. and hopefully we can keep